[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this is going to mean that about 500-1000 fish are going to just stay home and keep their cashola

[/ QUOTE ]


At the risk of again re-hashing an old question, why would Harrah's adopt this policy prohibiting 3rd-party registrations when it's going to cost them MINIMUM 1,000 buy-ins (aka $10M)...granted that's a drop in the hat for a corp like Harrah's, but they'll be hit even harder with the lost publicity b/c of a smaller field. Seems like a real bonehead move to me. Especially when it doesn't appear that they shouldn't have any concerns about legal liability from merely allowing a 3rd party to pay an entrant's fee.

[/ QUOTE ]

My guess is Harrah's legal staff does not want to take the risk that funds could be siezed by the DOJ. If a known drug dealer were to funnel money into Harrah's and they were aware of it, Harrah's would not accept the money. At this time under Bush they could equate Pokerstars being similar to a drug cartel. I applaud Pokerstars and Harrah's for taking this course of action.

The office reason that Harrah's will state for the reduction of entries into the WSOP is that this time there was only an eleven month cycle between WSOP's. They may state UIGEA would account for some of the decline, but not likely.